You are the biggest downer on creeds. Or am I wrong?
I take what I believe to be true and useful, and silently pass over the remainder.
First couple of centuries AD, not much of a problem. After that, meh.
Ah, Good then.
2nd Corinthians 5:
17 Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.
I don’t see this new creation as a unilateral act of God. I see it as a coöperation between us and God. I am NOT suggesting that we have to struggle to do righteous deeds or fulfill the Mosaic law, but that salvation from a life of sin to a life or righteousness is a process that requires our coöperation with God’s enabling grace (Titus 2)—made available by Christ’s death and resurrection. We cannot become consistently righteous through self-effort. God won’t unilaterally make remake us, but with our coöperation with God, we CAN become regenerated, and live a consistently righteous life. Paul also wrote to the Corinthians at the beginning of the next chapter:
Working together with him, then, we appeal to you not to receive the grace of God in vain.
Working together (synergy) with Him implies coöperation. Expecting God to do it all is but an attempt to receive that enabling grace as a unilateral act on God’s part. That won’t work. It will be in vain. For God doesn’t do things that way. He works TOGETHER with us. It’s not monergy on God’s part; it’s synergy.
18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation;
Notice he says “all this.” What is the referent for “all this”? Is it not the previous verse—our becoming a new creation through Christ?
19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation.
Now Paul begins a sentence with “that is.” He’s going to put the same idea in another way. God was in the PROCESS of reconciling the world to Himself. Because it requires our coöperation, reconciliation is a process. Reconciliation between two human beings is never a one-way street. Both have to give something in order to be reconciled. There has to be coöperation. The same between God and man.
20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.
Even the Corinthians, at least some of them, were not yet reconciled to God. So Paul appeals to them to be reconciled. Clearly Paul didn’t believe that the whole world was already reconciled to God so that all Christ’s ambassadors had to do was announce that accomplished reconciliation. If that had been the case, Paul would never have written, “We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.”
As I understand it… the ONLY possible “process” if you will was that of God’s working in Christ in having established said reconciliation, i.e., it was ALL God and none of us; or as I’ve mentioned elsewhere… the ONLY thing man contributed was the sin making it necessary.
IMO it muddies the water to conflate the reconciliation of man with the righteousness of believers… the former is established and the latter is something to be walked in. Certainly the outworking of righteousness can be a process BUT said righteousness is different from the gracious reconciliation that enabled it.
Rom 5:10 For if when we were enemies we were reconciled to God through the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, we shall be saved by His life.
WHEN did the reconciliation occur? … “when we were enemies” — there was NO “coöperation” on man’s part, IT WAS indeed the unilateral work of God in Christ as the text makes fully and abundantly CLEAR right there in black and white.
Again… with the reconciliation HAVING ALREADY BEEN established FOR ALL, that is, WHEN enemies, as per… “having been reconciled” THEN the outworking of salvation comes into play FOR THE BELIEVER. Thus the Crucifixion wrought reconciliation and the Resurrection brought salvation — though indelibly linked they are two different things.
The first problem with that interpretation is harmonizing passages of the Scriptures that appear to oppose it, for a few examples these:
Acts 3:19 Repent, then, and turn to God, so that your sins may be wiped out, that times of refreshing may come from the Lord,
Col.1:13 For he has rescued us from the dominion of darkness and brought us into the kingdom of the Son he loves, 14 in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins.
1 Jn.1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
Eph.1:7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace,
Acts 2:38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
1 Jn.1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin.
Acts 10:43 All the prophets testify about Him that everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins through His name.
Secondly to make more sense of 2 Cor.5:19 in harmony with the above passages, there are reasonable alternate interpretations of 2 Cor.5:19, such as:
Another thought is that reconciliation in 2 Cor.5:19-20 is considered by Paul as an “ongoing process” (p.256 of TDNT, Vol.1). The “phrase ήν καταλλασσων in 2 C. 5:19 does not denote a concluded work: “He was present to reconcile the world to Himself”; when and where this work will be concluded is not brought under consideration in 2 C. 5:19-20. For this reason we should not draw from the fact that Paul thinks of the world as the object of reconciliation the deduction that reconciliation for him consists exclusively in the removal of the relationship of guilt between man and God, since the world as a whole is not a new creation etc. This would amount to saying that what Paul explicitly calls the ministry of reconciliation and the self-reconciliation of man forms no part of reconciliation. Paul does not say that the world is reconciled (καταλλαγεις). The reconciliation of the world is as little finished as the απoβoγή of the Jews. Both have begun in the cross of Christ, and both are in the course of fulfillment (–> 258). We can call the world reconciled in the Pauline sense only as we anticipate the execution of that which is present in the purpose of God and in the foundation” (p.257, Friedrich Buchsel, ed. Gerhard Kittel).
“The compound of “was” and the participle “reconciling,” instead of the imperfect (Greek), may also imply the continuous purpose of God, from before the foundation of the world, to reconcile man to Himself, whose fall was foreseen.” [Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary]
A third obstacle to the Pantelist view is that if God is not holding the world’s sins against them, this may not mean they are forgiven, but merely being allowed a probationary period of time in which to repent before His wrath that is on them (Jn.3:36) becomes their experience as per Rom.2:3-16:
Jn.3:36 he who is believing in the Son, hath life eonian; and he who is not believing the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God doth remain upon him.’
So it may be that God is not imputing men’s sins - now - but is giving them time to repent (Rev.2:21) & commands them to do so/repent (Acts 17:30), but when that time expires then judgement & wrath will come (Rom.2):
Rev.2:21 Even though I have given her time to repent of her immorality, she is unwilling.
Romans 2:4 Or do you disregard the riches of His kindness, tolerance, and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?
Romans 2:5 But because of your hard and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
Acts 17:30 And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:
Rev.18:5 For her sins are piled up to heaven, and God has remembered her iniquities. 6 Give back to her as she has done to others; pay her back double for what she has done; mix her a double portion in her own cup.
A fourth problem for the Pantelist theory is the above passage (Rev.18:5-6), which is post Calvary/the cross/c. 30 A.D. reveals God repaying for sins, in opposition to “not imputing their sins against them” (2 or.5:19).
A fifth problem with your interpretation is elsewhere Paul makes the non imputation of sin conditioned on faith:
2 Cor.5:19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing[3049] their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
Rom.4:8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute[3049] sin.
Rom.4:1 What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? 2 For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted[3049] unto him for righteousness. 4 Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned[3049] of grace, but of debt.
5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted[3049] for righteousness. 6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth[3049] righteousness without works,
7 Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute[3049] sin.
9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned[3049] to Abraham for righteousness. 10 How was it then reckoned[3049]? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision. 11 And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed[3049] unto them also: 12 And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.
The sixth difficulty with the above stated Pantelist perspective is the passage says to “Be reconciled to God” v.20, which would have already taken place if Paul were saying the world is already reconciled to God as the Pantelist interprets v.19. IOW the Pantelist view makes the passage contradict itself.
Seventh, If the intended thought was God had already accomplished reconciliation, why not instead say “God was in Christ [and RECONCILED] the world to himself on the cross” rather than say “reconcilING”. If the world has already been fully reconciled to God, shouldn’t the message of the gospel be “you are reconciled to God” instead of Paul’s urgent appeal begging others to “be reconciled to God” (v.20)?
And why such an earnest appeal? Because the context warns that this is “a day of salvation” (2 Cor.6:1-2), wherein men are being given “time to repent” (Rev.2:21) which God commands all men to do (Acts 17:30) because there is coming a day of judgement and wrath (Acts 17:31, Romans 2).
Eightth, we also see in Romans 1:18-32 that “Paul speaks quite plainly of the wrath of God as a present and manifest reality” (TDNT, Vol.1, p.257), which doesn’t sound like He has already forgiven everyone’s sins - past, present & future - no matter how much light they are rebelling against, including blaspheming the Holy Spirit - without even as much as confessing, let alone repenting of them.
If that were the case, then why couldn’t men could just wallow in their sins, enjoying the many various pleasures of such for their entire mortal lives & then go to immediately to heavenly bliss at the moment of their death? After all, God has forgiven them & is not holding their sins against them, right? What is the worst case scenario, a slap on the hand as per your view that “who in all their prideful arrogance or blind ignorance would not respond in worshipful contrition postmortem, in-kind, before the presence of God”? Certainly nothing that sounds like torment into the eons of the eons (Rev.20:10; 14:9-11) or departing into eonian chastening & fire (Mt.25:41,46), etc.
There is no mention in Romans 5:10 of God “unilaterally forgiving humanity’s sins”. In fact there is no mention of forgiveness of sins, period, whether through confession, repentance, & faith or not.
By the word “we” Paul is referring to the saints (those of faith) his letter is addressed to.
http://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/5-10.htm
In the context of Romans 5, evidently salvation is about avoiding wrath (Rom.5:9) :
Rom.5:9 Therefore, since WE(of faith) have now been justified by His blood, how much more shall WE(of faith) be saved from wrath through Him!
Rom 5:10 For if when WE were enemies we were reconciled to God THROUGH the death of His Son, much more, having been reconciled, WE(of faith) shall be saved by His life.
Rom 5:11 And not only this, but WE also exult in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom WE have now received the reconciliation.
Wrath & salvation from it is a repeated theme in Romans:
Rom.1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
Rom. 2:4 Or do you disregard the riches of His kindness, tolerance, and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness leads you to repentance?
Rom. 2:5 But because of your hard and unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of wrath, when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.
Rom.2:8 but to those who are selfishly ambitious and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, wrath and indignation.
Rom. 3:5 But if our unrighteousness demonstrates the righteousness of God, what shall we say? The God who inflicts wrath is not unrighteous, is He? (I am speaking in human terms.)
Rom.9:22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath–prepared for destruction?
Reconciliation isn’t unilateral forgiveness of sins.
Those who believe recieve forgiveness of sins.
Those believers who continue in the faith & walk in the light continue to have forgiveness of sins & salvation from wrath.
The “we” of Romans 5:10 is those of faith, not the world of unbelievers. The verse does not say reconciliation occurred at the moment of Christ’s death, but “through” His death.
Verse 9 says we (those of faith) have been justified by His blood. Was that without faith? No, it was conditional on faith:
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, (Rom.5:1)
So likewise the reconciliation of verse 10 is conditional on faith.
Peace via the blood of the cross comes by faith, not unconditionally & without belief:
Rom.5:1 Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ
Rom.3:25a God presented Him as an atoning sacrifice through faith in His blood
Just more repetitious cut n’ paste from other threads… do you EVER have a genuine thought of your own, let alone anything with any substance? NO!
NONE of those texts you claim “appear to oppose” are contrary at all… AND you offer NO thoughts of your own demonstrating such; you are simply vacuous on this.
AND there you go again… I made NO MENTION in what I said, i.e., what you quoted of me, from Rom 5:10 claiming as YOU have the… “unilaterally forgiving humanity’s sins”. Little wonder I waste as little time as possible responding to your pathetic ineptitude.
I don’t feel the need to demonstrate what is obvious. The burden of proof lies completely on you to try to pull a rabbit out of your hat.
True you applied that remark to 2 Cor.5:19, another passage re reconciliation. My comment applies equally well to 2 Cor.5:19 also.
So you think just cut n’ pasting random texts is your own magical rabbit… I don’t really get this special kind of stupidity but I’m impressed with your commitment to it. 
You gotta love the fight!
I don’t love fights of any kind; I hate them.
Many times as a teacher in elementary schools, I have observed this childish exchange of insults between students during recesses and noon hours: “I’m this and you’re that!”
“You’re nothing but a stupid piece of $#%π@, completely ignorant!”
“Well, you’re a useless @$$η#λψ, too brainless to know the difference between your jabbering mouth and your hind end!”
There’s nothing as opposite to love as these kinds of personal attacks.
1 Like
I say that if we went back in history on this forum, it would appear that you, from time to time, got quite into the fight. We could call it the challenge of expressing our views, or call it lively debate, but in the end it is the same. Just different words.
Peace. 
You are right concerning what you wrote in the above post about me. I got drawn in by Davo’s personal attacks against me, and responded in kind. Of that I am now ashamed.
1 Like
Notice I said ‘Peace’ no need to be ashamed. Love you brother… I hope you consider me one though we have ‘debated’ a few times. We don’t agree but I think you need to keep fighting!
It is good stuff.
The Canadian / USA understanding is priceless. Thanks.
1 Like
What’s this about?
Note: This is Davo’s commentary to Origen:
Perhaps we need a video, in order to illustrate the possible permutations - for Origen, Davo and others?
Look, there are people from all over the world on this forum. We can banter back and forth (fight 
) but we can also learn about how other cultures and countries perceive current events. Paidion is Canadian and at least to me, gives me a view of his country and culture. All quite fascinating if you think about it!
1 Like
Having said that
Adam gets called out but he won’t own his own stuff, so he blames Eve. She’s learnt from the best so does in-kind and blames the snake… and the poor devil hasn’t a leg to stand on. Guess I’ll slither off… 
It took me 15 minutes to get the three stooges up on the forum. STUPID or what.